P-2007-1679, P-2007-1680, P-2007-2078, P-2007-2167, P-2007-2168, P-2007-2169, P-2007-2682,

P-2007-2683, P-2007-2684, P-2007-2685, P-2007-2686, P-2007-2687, P-2007-2688, P-2007-2689,

P-2007-3392, P-2008-0995, P-2008-0996, P-2008-0997, P-2008-0998, P-2008-0999, P-2008-1000,

P-2008-1001, P-2008-1002, P-2008-1003, P-2008-1004, P-2008-1005, P-2008-1478, P-2008-1479,

P-2008-1699, P-2008-2687, P-2008-2834, P-2008-2835

IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION

Under

THE PUBLIC SERVICE ACT

Before

THE PUBLIC SERVICE GRIEVANCE BOARD

BETWEEN

Mario Laforest

Complainant

• and -

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services)

Employer

BEFORE

Kathleen G. O’Neil

Vice-Chair

FOR THE COMPLAINANT

Mario Laforest

FOR THE EMPLOYER CONFERENCE CALL

Cathy Phan Ministry of Government Services Counsel November 21, 2008.

HEARING SUBMISSIONS

April 1, 2009. Initial set of written submissions completed May 13, 2009. Subsequent issue dealt with by written submissions between July 24 and September 1, 2009.

Decision

1This decision deals with several grievances filed by Mr. Mario Laforest, an Operational Manager (OM) at the Toronto East Detention Centre (TEDC), in which he claims compensation for missed overtime opportunities, including community escort duty.

2In a preliminary decision dated July 21, 2008, the Board dealt with the threshold issue of whether the grievor had established any enforceable term or condition of employment. In that decision the Board found that the terms and conditions of employment for Operational Managers, at TEDC included, among other provisions, an entitlement to the benefit of the sequence for offering overtime set out in a November 12, 2007 memo from the Superintendent of the TEDC entitled “Overtime Hiring Process for Managers”.

3Many of the occasions on which Mr. Laforest claims he should have been called for overtime involved community escort duty, and the issue of whether Operational Managers at TEDC are to be called before police, when correctional officers are not available. In this respect, the preliminary decision found as follows in reference to the October 2003 excerpt from the Adult Institutions Policy and Procedures Manual entitled Assigning Community Escort Duties as applied at TEDC:

This document provides for use of OM’s in an emergency prior to police, but is no longer an applicable term or condition of employment to the extent that it has been varied by practice to exclude very urgent situations such as “911” situations where there is no time to engage managers. If any of the fact situations involved in the grievances included what may be a rare emergency situation where there was time to engage managers, but no effort was made to engage managers prior to police, despite the availability of managers who were not otherwise required for institutional needs, it may be pursued under this policy.

On the material before me, OM’s have no entitlement to escort duty in a non-emergency situation. Although there is no prohibition against offering such work to managers where the appropriate procedures for bargaining unit personnel have been exhausted, and the institutional needs for OM’s have been met, there is no guarantee of such work in the terms and conditions of employment established in the evidence.

Further, if the claim for escort duty involves a missed overtime opportunity, it must be pursued under the overtime protocol, which provides consideration by the Deputy Superintendent of offering a substitute opportunity, but no monetary remedy for a missed opportunity. It is important to note that where a grievor does not refer the matter to the Deputy Superintendent, there is no remedy provided under the overtime protocol.

The hearing was reconvened to deal with whether there had been a breach of those terms and conditions of employment in the disputed fact situations. All Mr. Laforest’s grievances outstanding as of February 19, 2009 were consolidated and set down together, as the underlying issues were the same. They were dealt with by mediation/arbitration, with the results set out below.

4There are several categories of fact situations underlying the grievances which will be dealt with in turn, starting with the issue of community escort duty.

Community Escort Duty

5A number of the grievances claim entitlement to missed overtime for escort duty assignments on dates in and after July 2008, which are affected by a revision of the Adult Institutions Policy & Procedures (ADI) manual dealing with community escort which came into effect that month. Most relevant to this case is that the new version makes no mention of Operational Manager’s being required to be offered overtime before police are engaged for community escort. It provides instead that once the correctional officer resource is exhausted by following the prescribed steps, “management reserves the right to utilize other resources to ensure the escort is completed”. There is no specific mention of engaging police or managers for escort duty, or any prescribed sequence in that respect, but the parties understood those as the two usual other resources.

6The main remaining issue in respect of community escort duty for dates earlier than July 2008 concerns whether any of the situations in which Mr. Laforest says he should have been offered community escort duty prior to the police were properly considered an emergency of the “non-911” variety. The trigger for the option of utilizing managers for community escort duty before July 2008, was “in an emergency” after exhausting the correctional officer resources. As noted above, it was established in the preliminary decision that extremely urgent “911 type” emergencies are usually dealt with at TEDC by calling police, and that any entitlement to preference for OMs in these circumstances had been extinguished by practice. The fact that there is no entitlement does not mean that Operational Managers may never be used for even the most urgent of emergency escort duty assignments if they are the readily available resource, just that it is not an enforceable entitlement forming part of the employment contract, on the evidence before me.

7The term “emergency” is not defined in the earlier ADI, and the parties disagree about its meaning beyond obvious “911” medical emergency situations. The grievor’s view is that any situation where there are no Correctional Officers available to do the community escort duty is an emergency in respect of the care, custody and control of the offenders. As support for his interpretation of the wording of the policy, he submits that labour action by Correctional Officers is considered an emergency by the employer and involves staffing by OM’s to minimize any compromise to safety of the public, which is of paramount importance. Stressing that Operational Managers are required to be trained to do community escort, Mr. Laforest notes that there are many occasions when there is time to canvass managers before assigning escort duty to the police. In his view, using police officers to perform the duties of correctional officers should always be a temporary measure since their use is an emergency measure in itself. Further, he argues that it is fiscally prudent to use Operational Managers since it is less expensive than paid duty Metropolitan Toronto police officers. As well, he is of the view that the general population should not be deprived of the services of those police officers, as they are better deployed doing their regular policing duties fighting crime. He indicated that the opportunities he is seeking would not have reduced the complement of Operational Managers in the institution, as none of them were times when he was already in the institution.

8The employer submits that none of the situations grieved constitute an emergency. A number of those situations involve admission of inmates to hospital where the police could have been replaced by Operational Managers at some point in the hospital stay. It is the employer’s position that OM’s have no entitlement to replace police in these circumstances. As well, counsel submits that where the opportunities occurred on the weekends, it is important to note that TEDC is often short staffed and in need of Operational Managers, so that the priority is to have managers in the institution, rather than out in the community doing escort duty. Further, counsel submits that the grievor’s remarks about financial responsibility do not mean there was an emergency in any of the situations grieved.

9The meaning of the word “emergency” is central to this portion of the dispute. Since there is no shared, defined, or special meaning to the word as part of the employment contract, the generally accepted approach to the interpretation of contracts applies. That is: the plain, ordinary meaning of the word should be used. Although the word can be used in many contexts, it usually describes a situation arising with little notice or time to act, which will involve serious negative consequences unless immediate action is taken. This ordinary meaning is captured in the following dictionary definition: a sudden state of danger, conflict etc. requiring immediate action, or a medical condition requiring immediate treatment. (The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2001). Its root word is “emerge”, which carries the meaning of something that is just coming to light, and was not previously known. The element of sudden danger and immediacy is what is missing from the situations in which Mr. Laforest claims overtime for hospital escort duty. Where an inmate has been safely escorted to the hospital, whether by the police or correctional officers, there are staffing choices to be made as to how to cover the escort duty for as long as is necessary thereafter, but the situation no longer has the unpredictability and urgency of a sudden event that has just come to light. Mr. Laforest considers it an emergency when correctional officers are not available, and/or because it is more expensive to use police. However, the evidence does not persuade me to find that to be the best interpretation in all the circumstances. Rather, is my view that the situations described by Mr. Laforest are recurring staffing situations, which if not entirely routine, are no longer properly considered emergencies after an initial emergency escort, and are safely dealt with as they arise with less urgent managerial decisions about the deployment of staff and finances.

10As to the situation after the July 2008 protocol, Mr. Laforest said that the new policy should be taken together with the Operational Manager’s job description which requires that they operate the shift in a prudent manner, so that in using “other resources” under the new protocol, the Operational Managers have to be accountable. As an Operational Manager and as a taxpayer, he does not find it justifiable to use police officers for purposes related to keeping custody of jail inmates when there are Operational Managers available who could do the work. He also points out that the forms in use for initiating community escort still list managers before police.

11In my view, the case for entitlement to escort duty in preference to police in the fact situations grieved has not been made out even under the previous policy, which includes the preference for Operational Managers over police in emergencies, and cannot be made out on the more recent one, from which it has been removed. The fact that the old forms are still in use cannot create an entitlement when the overarching policy does not. Moreover, the fact that Operational Managers are accountable for fiscal prudence does not create an entitlement in other managers to the assignment of escort duty on any given occasion, as cost effectiveness is not the criterion in the escort duty policy. In any event, it continues to be the case that Operational Managers may be called upon before police to do escort duty when correctional officers are not available and other operational needs are met, but no entitlement has been made out in the situations grieved.

12Further, Mr. Laforest wrote in his July 24, 2009 correspondence that Superintendent R. Denis of the Toronto East Detention Centre indicated on July 8, 2009 that it his expectation and that of the Ministry that in hiring for community hospital escort duty that consideration be given as second priority after correctional officers to Operational Managers prior to hiring police. The employer’s written response was to the effect that this was a comment in line with the July 2008 revision to the ADI protocol in which the employer reserves its right to use other resources, but does not create an entitlement in Mr. Laforest to priority over the police on any particular occasion.

13The Board notes that the comments made by Mr. Denis were made well after any of the instances dealt with in this decision, and thus are not part of the interpretation of the “rules” to be applied to these grievances. Further, he is a different superintendent than the one who authored the 2007 memo in regards to the distribution of managerial overtime. If it is the intention of the current administration that Operational Managers will have entitlement to being offered overtime for escort duty prior to the police, this point might benefit from clarification going forward.

14For the above reasons, the grievances are dismissed to the extent they claim priority for community escort duty over police.

Instances Where the Grievor’s Name Was Skipped

15Mr. Laforest says that on a number of occasions, his name was skipped, and he was not offered any overtime, even though the Operational Managers who received overtime had more accumulated hours than he did, as the accumulated totals were “zeroed out” each month at the time. The employer did not dispute this specifically, but said that no monetary remedy would be available in any event, and no remedy at all unless the grievor had contacted the Deputy Superintendent in writing about it.

16This situation applies to January 18, 2008 where the evidence is that everyone was called to be offered overtime except Mr. Laforest, and that one of those called had more accumulated overtime hours than he. Similarly for July 4, 2008, the evidence is that Mr. Laforest had a lower number of accumulated hours than the manager who worked the overtime shift, which is contrary to how the distribution process is intended to work.

17A variation on this theme involves a situation where Mr. Laforest says a manager reassigned himself to work overtime prior to exhausting the overtime protocol. This potentially applies to February 18 and 19, 2008 where the evidence is that the manager reassigned himself to work the night shift prior to calling Mr. Laforest. If the manager worked the shifts as overtime before offering it to other managers, it would have been a violation of the following portion of the 2007 memo:

The overtime hiring process must be exhausted for the particular shift prior to any manager changing their shift to work the overtime. If the overtime hiring process is exhausted and no manager accepts the overtime shift, then a shift change may occur to cover that overtime shift, and the process begins again to hire for the newly available shift. All contacts to Operational Managers and shift changes must be clearly documented, dated and signed by the manager making the contacts.

As the evidence is not clear as to whether the shifts were worked as straight time, or overtime, the matter is remitted to the employer to ascertain which is the case and inform the grievor. If a shift was worked as overtime, then Mr. Laforest is entitled to an additional overtime opportunity to rectify the situation. If it was worked as straight time, the claim is dismissed in regards to that shift.

“Step-up” Acting Managers

Bargaining unit members are used as acting managers, either as “day-to-day step-ups” or as secondments integrated into the schedule. A differentiation is made between the two as to the sequence in which overtime is to be offered in Assistant Deputy Minister Commeford’s memo of May 17, 2005, which was summarized as follows in the preliminary decision:

This document directs all AIS Institutions to attempt to offer overtime shift assignments to confirmed and Acting OMs who were already in the schedule prior to Correctional Officers who are qualified to act as OMs and who have indicated their availability to work as well as retired OMs who have returned to work on a contract. It states that this practice would be followed as long as it did not conflict with meeting the Institution’s overall operational requirements and financial objectives. It states that no compensation will be made for missed opportunities, however, efforts will be made to provide a subsequent overtime opportunity if the protocol was not followed.

a) On straight time

19Some of the occasions complained of by Mr. Laforest were situations where there were no available Operational Managers and a correctional officer stepped up to fill the floor position, and the bargaining unit shift was filled with overtime for another Correctional Officer. This applies, for example, to November 7 and 22, 2007 as well as to October 13, 2008, when there was what the grievor referred to as an institutional crisis requiring a Level 2 weapons search, which is required to be done by an Operational Manager. The OM complement was depleted for the day, and other institutional staff were needed, so the “step-up” option was implemented. I do not find this to be a breach of any term or condition of Mr. Laforest’s employment as there is no indication that the “step-up” Correctional Officer was paid overtime. Rather, the backfill correctional officer was paid overtime. There is nothing in the documents before me that creates an entitlement in Operational Managers to have a shift filled by overtime for managers, when it can be filled at straight time. This is made clear in the May 17, 2005 memo from the Assistant Deputy Minister as follows:

Please note that OM absences may be filled with actors or unclassified OMs at straight time prior to invoking the above OT Protocol.

20Thus, the grievances are dismissed to the extent that they refer to shifts filled on straight-time rather than creating overtime for managers.

b)On overtime

21January 9 and 30, 2008 are dates on which the evidence is that day to day acting managers worked on overtime when the grievor, who was available, was not offered overtime. As there is no indication that there was an unsuccessful attempt to offer him this overtime, this is not in line with the Commeford memo. Further, there was no suggestion that any Operational Manager with fewer accumulated hours was available to do the shift. In these circumstances, it appears there was a breach of the protocol.

c) Other issues related to allegations concerning “Step-up” Acting Managers

22The employer wished to make written submissions concerning two other occasions on which acting managers who were not in the schedule were said to have been given overtime opportunities in preference to confirmed and seconded managers, January 21 and 22, 2008.

23For January 21, 2008, the employer wrote that the grievor could have been scheduled to work overtime if he had been available, and that he should have alerted the Deputy Superintendent if he thought he had missed an overtime opportunity. The uncontradicted evidence is that the grievor had indicated availability for all shifts in that period of time so that I find it more likely than not that the grievor should have been offered an overtime shift on that occasion. I note that there is a provision in the superintendent’s 2007 memo which states that availability must not be indicated in a way which conflicts with scheduled shifts. Since there was no suggestion that the grievor’s availability was affected in this way for any of the shifts in issue in this decision, I infer that this was not a problem in this or any of the other shifts dealt with below. The issue of contacting the Deputy Superintendent is dealt with below in the section on remedy.

24As to January 22, the employer wrote that the overtime went to a manager with lower accumulated overtime. Mr. Laforest says he should nonetheless have had the opportunity, because the manager with the lower overtime accumulation had not put in his availability at the right time, and therefore should have been considered after all those who did, including himself. The grievor said that all Operational Managers have been directed that there is a requirement to submit overtime availability by the 15th of each month for the following month, and that any submissions after that date are to be placed as a secondary consideration and offered the opportunity after those who complied with the time line. Such wording appears in the agreed protocol between the union and the employer of July 27, 2006 which is applicable to bargaining unit Correctional Officers. For Mr. Laforest and other managers at TEDC, that protocol is not the applicable document. Rather, it is the superintendent’s memo of November 12, 2007 which applies, where this issue is addressed in paragraph 2 as follows:

No changes to the availability sheets are permitted once the form has been submitted, unless approved by the Deputy Superintendent, Operations.

25For managers, the question then becomes, not whether there was a late submission, but whether the Deputy Superintendent Operations approved the change to the availability sheet after it was submitted. If so, then the grievor would not be entitled to the opportunity. If the change was not approved, then it is my view that it flows from the superintendent’s memo of November 12, 2007 that he should have been offered the opportunity first. This appears to be the case for November 18, 2007 as well when an overtime shift was offered to a secondary manager, which I understand to mean someone who submitted his availability information after the 15th of the previous month.

Unfilled Vacancies

26For a number of the overtime opportunities claimed, the shift remained vacant, requiring one of the other OM’s to double up floors, and no overtime was worked by a manager. Some other shifts were partially filled, but in these cases four or more hours, enough to be considered an overtime opportunity, were left unfilled. This situation involves the wording at the beginning of the November 12, 2007 memo entitled Overtime Hiring Process for Managers, “if overtime is required”. It is common ground that the Operational Manager running a shift, or doing the scheduling for another shift, has a significant amount of discretion in how to staff a shift to get the necessary work done. There is nothing in the material before me sufficient to find that the unfilled shifts were required to be filled with overtime, so that the grievances are dismissed in regards to claims for unfilled shifts or partial shifts on which no manager worked overtime.

27The grievor also mentioned that in some instances a shift was accepted, but the whole shift was not worked, something which is not supposed to occur. This is a reference to the sixth point in the November 12, 2007 memo from the superintendent, which provides that once a shift has been accepted, the full shift must be worked. Although that is the provision, the evidence is not persuasive that the grievor was owed a shift as a result.

Remedy

a. Contacting the Deputy Superintendent

28Mr. Laforest points out that he has given written notice by e-mail that he would be interested in providing coverage for any and all available overtime shifts. Further, he states that he brought all his concerns about overtime to the attention of the deputy superintendent of operations on a daily basis, verbally. It is his position that the administration was well aware of his lack of satisfaction and had an opportunity to remedy each of the situations involved in the grievances. Although the employer’s position is that the notification of dissatisfaction should be in writing, the grievor submits that the protocol at TEDC does not indicate that notification of the Deputy Superintendent has to be in writing.

29There is nothing in the documents before me which indicates that a manager’s concern about a missed overtime opportunity has to be raised in writing, and no evidence suggesting that such a requirement has been communicated in some other way. In the result, and if the employer continues to wish these indications of concern about missed overtime opportunities in writing, and/or within a certain time frame, further direction or clarification may be in order. In any event, for the purposes of this decision I accept Mr. Laforest’s uncontradicted evidence that he brought his concerns to the attention of the deputy superintendent.

b. Compensation vs. another overtime opportunity

30Mr. Laforest argues that offering him another overtime opportunity rather than compensation is not an effective remedy because he has already indicated his availability for overtime to the maximum hours of work permitted each and every day. Merely offering another opportunity would compound the hiring practice violations in the grievor’s view, and thus would not be an effective remedy. In his estimation, putting hours into his bank at the rate of time and one half for all missed opportunities, which could then be cashed out, is the way to remedy the situation. He indicates that in the past, when he would complain to the deputy about missed overtime opportunities, he was sometimes paid in money or equivalent banked time.

31Further, the grievor made reference to a decision of the Ontario Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board OPSEU (Union) and the Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), February 18, 2009, GSB #2004-3577 (Briggs) which held that an in-kind remedy was not appropriate in light of the agreement between the union and the employer and a previous decision dealing with the same issue: OPSEU (Union) and the Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services), May 8, 2001, GSB #0236/98 (Lee).

32Employer counsel, by contrast, underlines that the policy itself is clear that no monetary compensation is available for missed opportunities. As to the grievor’s reference to past settlements where monetary compensation was paid to managers to settle overtime grievances, counsel submits that any such settlements were part of a negotiation, and an exercise of discretion on the employer’s part, something which does not create any entitlement for the grievor.

33Employer counsel observes that the main reason that an in-kind remedy is not attractive to the grievor is that he has “maxed” himself out on overtime, and cannot work more than he does already, which is not a reason to interpret the protocol in the way he suggests. As to his reference to the jurisprudence from the Grievance Settlement Board, it is the employer’s position that the grievor cannot advance his case by relying on the “rules” for bargaining unit members, which are different than those for managers.

34In his July 24, 2009 correspondence, the grievor raised the fact that there had been a monetary resolution negotiated between the employer and OPSEU in regard to errors in the implementation of community escort hiring practice. It is his view that the settlement supports and confirms his concerns and indicates that a monetary settlement is the best way to address the matter. To this point, the employer responded that a settlement with the bargaining unit does not affect the managers, and was in any event made on a without prejudice or precedent basis.

35On the issue of monetary compensation, the documents before me are clear that the system is predicated on a “no compensation” model, i.e. it has as part of its terms that there will not be pay for overtime shifts not worked. Rather the superintendent’s 2007 memo provides:

If it is determined that the hiring process was not followed, there will be an offer of the first available shift to rectify the situation.

36Since it is an integral part of the protocol, it is not in my view a further violation to offer a shift on the priority basis of an offer of the first available shift, rather than paying monetary compensation, or banking the equivalent in time. This is quite different from the situation dealt with for the bargaining unit in the Grievance Settlement Board’s decisions cited above. Specifically, the system agreed to between the union and the employer does not deal explicitly with remedy for missed opportunities, while the one in place for managers specifically does. Further, the Grievance Settlement Board’s jurisprudence has dealt with the issue on more than one occasion. An additional aspect of the system for managers is the portion of the superintendent’s 2007 memo which provides that errors will be dealt with by corrective action with managers who do not document and follow the overtime hiring process.

37As to the grievor’s arguments concerning settlements, even the ones which dealt with past managerial grievances, they cannot determine the outcome of these grievances, which the parties were not able to settle on their own. The settlement of the bargaining unit grievances deals with different terms and conditions of employment and is therefore even less applicable. There are many reasons why parties settle grievances on a particular basis at any given time, not all of them related to what would be the likely outcome if the matter were fully litigated. Most importantly, when a settlement is made on a without prejudice or precedent basis, it may not be relied on in other cases, such as this one.

38Further, the Board does not view the fact that the grievor has made himself continually available for all overtime shifts to be a sufficient reason to find that the “no compensation” aspect of the protocol should not be enforced. It may be that one effect of the grievor’s choice to make himself continuously available is that the remedy of offers of additional shifts would not increase the total amount of overtime available to him. Nonetheless, the protocol does not provide compensation for missed overtime opportunities or a guarantee that the global amount of overtime will be increased. In short, it is a more modest scheme than what the grievor would like it to be, providing only the offer of the first available shift in response to situations in which the overtime hiring process was not followed. It is worth noting however, that the fact that the protocol provides for the next available shift means that the remedy is more advantageous than being required to wait for the next shift in which he has the least number of overtime hours recorded as accepted or declined.

39In a number of his applications to the Board, the grievor also requested monetary compensation for the fact that the employer had let the problem of his overtime claims go so long without resolution, which he characterizes as bad faith. The evidence does not support a finding of bad faith. Rather, the evidence discloses a long-standing, but genuine, disagreement between the parties on the subject of overtime distribution.

c. Team to review overtime

40As part of the remedy for the claimed missed overtime opportunities, the grievor seeks the establishment of a team to review overtime distribution on an ongoing basis to make sure that the process is fair and equitable. This would go beyond the remedy necessary to this case, and call for the creation of a new term and condition of employment rather than the enforcement of the existing ones, something not within the Board’s mandate. In the circumstances, the Board notes the suggestion and the fact that it may be considered by the employer if so advised.

Summary of decision

41For the reasons given above:

a) The grievance is dismissed for the disputed dates on which the overtime assignment related to community escort duty awarded to police, as none of them were shown to be emergency situations.

b) The grievance is dismissed for any dates for which the shift claimed was filled by someone working at straight time.

c) The grievance is allowed in respect of January 9, 21, and 30, 2008 to the extent that the grievor should be offered 3 additional overtime opportunities on the priority basis of the next available overtime shifts.

d) In respect of November 18, 2007 and January 22, 2008, the employer is directed to advise the grievor whether the Deputy Superintendent had approved the change to the availability list prior to the assignment of another Operational Manager to work overtime on those dates. If so, the grievor’s claim is dismissed. If not, the grievor should be offered the corresponding number of additional overtime opportunities on a priority basis.

e) In respect of February 18 and 19, 2008, the employer is directed to advise the grievor whether the shifts he claims were worked as overtime or straight time. If they were worked as overtime, he is entitled to the offer of the corresponding number of additional overtime opportunities on a priority basis.

f) The grievor is entitled to the offer of two additional overtime shifts on a priority basis as his name was skipped on January 18 and July 4, 2008, while overtime was offered to a manager with higher accumulated hours at the time.

g) All other aspects of the grievances are dismissed as I am not persuaded on the evidence and argument before me that it is more likely than not that there was any other violation of the grievor’s terms and conditions of employment.

h) By file number, this means:

P-2007-1679, concerning Sept. 3, 2007 is dismissed;

P-2007-1680, concerning Sept. 4, 2007 is dismissed;

P-2007-2078, concerning Oct. 12, 2007 is dismissed;

P-2007-2167, concerning Oct. 26, 2007 is dismissed;

P-2007-2168, concerning Sept. 27, 2007, Oct. 1, 2007, Oct. 2, 2007,

Oct. 6, 2007, Oct. 10, 2007, Oct. 11, 2007, Oct. 12, 2007,

Oct. 15, 2007, Oct. 16, 2007, Oct. 17, 2007, Oct. 18, 2007,

Oct. 20, 2007, Oct. 21, 2007, Oct. 25, 2007, and Oct. 26, 2007 is dismissed;

P-2007-2169, concerning Nov. 21, 2007 is dismissed;

P-2007-2682, concerning Nov. 22, 2007 is allowed in part;

P-2007-2683, concerning Nov. 18, 2007 is allowed in part;

P-2007-2684 concerning Nov. 22, 2007 escort duty is dismissed;

P-2007-2685, concerning Nov. 18, 2007 escort duty is dismissed;

P-2007-2686, concerning Nov. 8, 2007 is dismissed;

P-2007-2687, concerning Nov. 16, 2007 is dismissed;

P-2007-2688, concerning Nov. 17, 2007 is dismissed;

P-2007-2689, concerning Nov. 7, 2007 is dismissed;

P-2007-3392 concerning January 9, 2008, is allowed in part;

P-2008-0995, concerning January 2 and 4, 2008 is dismissed;

P-2008-0996, concerning Jan. 4, 2008 is dismissed;

P-2008-0997, concerning Jan. 21, 2008 is allowed in part, but dismissed

as to escort duty;

P-2008-0998, concerning Jan. 22, 2008 is allowed in part, but dismissed as to escort duty;

P-2008-0999, concerning Jan. 30, 2008 is allowed in part, but dismissed as to escort duty and unfilled vacancies;

P-2008-1000, concerning Feb. 1, 2008 is dismissed;

P-2008-1001, concerning Feb. 2, 2008 is dismissed;

P-2008-1002, concerning Feb. 18, 2008 is allowed in part;

P-2008-1003, concerning Feb. 19, 2008 is allowed in part;

P-2008-1004, concerning Jan. 18, 2008 is allowed in part;

P-2008-1005, concerning Jan. 2, 2008 is dismissed;

P-2008-1478, concerning July 23, 2008 is dismissed;

P-2008-1479, concerning April and May, 2008 escort duties is dismissed;

P-2008-1699, concerning July 4, 2008 is allowed in part;

P-2008-2687, concerning Oct. 13, 2008 is dismissed;

P-2008-2834, concerning Nov. 7, 2008 is dismissed;

P-2008-2835 concerning Oct. 30, 2008 is dismissed.

43I will remain seized to deal with any issues relating to the implementation of the above decision which the parties are unable to resolve themselves.